Brussels – If there is one thing EU officials enjoy almost as much as journalists, it is metaphors. When applied to proposals that are announced, postponed and eventually pushed back indefinitely, the range of images at their disposal expands almost without limit. The pre-enlargement reforms are a case in point: in little more than a month, they have gone from being “in the oven” to “back in the fridge.”
According to EU sources contacted by The New Union Post, the Commission’s proposal on pre-enlargement reforms is waiting “for the best moment” – or, more specifically, for sufficient political urgency, so as not to risk the communication being “put in a corner and ignored” by member states.
After months of delays, the proposal has now evolved into something more closely linked to Ukraine’s accession and to “a new idea” of the enlargement process than to a broader reform of how an enlarged Union should function, regardless of how many or which candidates may join.
Some elements concerning the future functioning of the EU institutions and the safeguards to include in the new Accession Treaties will remain, but the focus has shifted to how the enlargement process would work “to include the necessity” of Ukraine.
The Commission’s plans for a revision of the EU accession policy – which could have gone as far as a form of “reversed membership,” granting full EU membership from the outset while deferring the implementation of the required reforms until after accession – have recently been killed off by member states. For now, the Commissioner for Enlargement, Marta Kos, is trying to push forward a discussion on a combination of options that could lead to “enhanced gradual integration.”
With the shelving of the revision of the EU accession policy, the prospect of a fast-tracked accession for Ukraine has lost momentum, particularly given Kyiv’s goal of joining by 2027. Ukraine’s progress “is not enough at the moment,” an EU official says, ruling out any “real prospect” of it becoming a member of the Union within a year under the current rules of the accession process, “regardless of the Hungarian veto.”
In any case, the Commission is unlikely to put something on the table “that will be overtaken by events” and that would require new legislative action to align with a potential breakthrough. In short, the aim is to act when the “right political momentum” appears on the horizon.
The European Commission had been expected to publish the communication on pre-enlargement reforms on 4 November, alongside the presentation of the 2025 Enlargement Package, but it was ultimately delayed until after the first EU Enlargement Forum, scheduled for 18 November. After two postponements, the Commission’s communication was expected “by the end of 2025, or the beginning of next year,” said Marko Makovec, Head of Cabinet of Commissioner Kos.
What to expect on pre-enlargement reforms
What the European Commission will publish is a communication – a soft law instrument setting out a strategic approach but carrying no legally binding force. Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos has anticipated that the proposal on the EU’s pre-enlargement reforms will focus on what can already be done under the current Treaties, and on those areas where a broad consensus is emerging.
Available tools include the passerelle clauses – legal mechanisms that allow a shift in decision-making procedures without a formal treaty amendment, such as moving from unanimity to qualified majority voting. Policy reviews will cover strengthening sectoral policies, values, and the budget. Building on the communication, the European Commission will engage with the Parliament and the Council to determine to what extent it will be possible to make progress with the co-legislators.
Head of Cabinet Makovec confirmed that “we are operating within the framework of the Treaties.” He noted that the work will also take into account that the current EU enlargement methodology, introduced in 2021, has been taken hostage by the “bilateralisation” of the EU accession process – meaning that “problems arise when bilateral issues introduced by some member states bring to a halt a process intended to drive reforms” in the candidates.
For the Commission, one possible solution could be “reducing the number of unanimous decisions in the Council from 150 to 70” during the intermediate stages of each candidate’s EU accession process, “merging them into only the most important decisions.” This is because “we have to move full speed ahead with the enlargement process and leave it to the legislators to decide how to proceed with the EU reforms,” Makovec stressed.
Regarding the plan suggested by some member states to admit new members without granting them full voting rights and the veto power – a way to externalise the problem of unanimity in the EU’s decision-making process onto the newcomers – Commissioner Kos already made it clear that in von der Leyen’s cabinet “there is no debate on cutting voting rights,” because “once we accept new member states, they also need to have the same rights.”
Head of Cabinet Makovec added that “we will not propose anything that goes against the core principle of the EU, which is equality.” On the contrary, “the elephant in the room” must be addressed – which Commissioner Kos referred to as the Trojan horse: “Regimes in Beijing and Moscow are willing to make us fail, and they have plans to change governments in some of the Member States. We need to make sure that new members will not be vulnerable.”
This is where the “safeguards” on political and security issues may be considered in the future Accession Treaties, but “they should not in any way limit the voting rights or other rights of the new Member States,” Makovec concluded, stressing that equality among members and their citizens “is what the EU is about.”
